Was former senior minister Pranab Mukherjee, who would eventually become the President of India – and upon retirement be invested with the Bharat Ratna, the nation’s highest civilian honour awarded by the Modi government – endeavouring once in his long political career to steer Sonia Gandhi, then Congress party chief, in the direction of toppling then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?The inference arises from the recall in Gandhi’s just published memoir, Belonging, of a 2010 meeting with Mukherjee in which the latter appeared to sideways probe her about effecting a “change at the top”.Seen in harsher light, this could be seen as an invitation to a political conspiracy to remove an incumbent prime minister, a manoeuvre decidedly different from the normal jockeying for power in a democracy.This makes the reference the most high-tension political revelation in the book by a mile, marking the setting of a new political culture in the country which is very distinct from the patterns seen in some of our neighbouring states.When Mukherjee made his pitch, he was a highly-regarded member of the Core Committee and the Strategy group which met on a frequent basis to coordinate between the Sonia-led Congress party and the Manmohan Singh government.The “shocked” Congress chief interpreted the manoeuvre as being aimed at toppling Singh for Mukherjee, given the latter’s undoubted seniority and experience in government. Mukherjee had been a minister from the days of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, not long after he joined the Congress party in 1969.Rajiv Gandhi had dropped him from his cabinet as well as from the Congress Working Committee, the party’s highest executive forum, when he succeeded his mother in late 1984. Mukherjee rebelled and in 1986, he formed the Rashtriya Samajwadi Congress, a regional outfit in West Bengal that fared disastrously and was ignominiously wound up.Mukherjee then came back to the Indian National Congress, where he was graciously accepted, and remained a valuable minister in subsequent Congress governments, for a time also being deputy chairman of the Planning Commission under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.He had seniority and ambition. Since the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, the media has carried stories of Mukherjee hinting at his own suitability for the top job. When on foreign tours, Indira would sometimes even name him as her number two during her absence, although it meant little. That probably boosted his sights.After her tragic departure from the scene, he was quoted in the press as suggesting that the most senior minister should take her place – a suggestion that could be seen as breathtakingly innocent or fantastically ambitious. No first hand sources were ever quoted in such reports of course – and in political reporting of inner workings in New Delhi, this isn’t always feasible either.On one occasion, Mukherjee was even reported as saying he wouldn’t make it because his inadequate Hindi might be a handicap. What was clear to all, though, that he was no leader, while he was a dream number two – well read, well-versed in the minutiae of governance, and entirely familiar with the rules, practices, procedures and precedents of parliament, which were sometimes a joy to see him elaborate, next in power only to the late Madhu Limaye, the socialist stalwart whose brilliance was instantly recognisable.Mukherjee’s capacity to give political direction was never really tested, except when he created his short-lived party in West Bengal. Even on the volatile issue of the signing of the India-US civil nuclear agreement on which the Left parties chose to withdraw support from the Manmohan Singh government, Mukherjee merely detailed before the House his account of discussions with the Left parties which were opposed to befriending the US. At no point did he seize the moment – even though it, in fact, existed – to present a compelling, overarching, political case for acceptance of the nuclear deal which had wide international ramifications.Manmohan Singh too was not a political leader. But he had two things going for him. He was deemed incorruptible by the Indian public. That was his accepted profile. Therefore, a complex plan had to be laid by his political opponents in his second term to make his government look corrupt. In the end, of course, the infamous 2G case could not stand judicial scrutiny in 2017 during the term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Two, Dr. Singh was a renowned economist and economic administrator whose advice was informally sought even by the US president Barack Obama, going by the American leader’s public remarks.These were some of the likely considerations why Sonia Gandhi closed her bet on him to lead the government as a prime minister in 2004 when Congress came back from the cold, rather than Mukherjee or any other senior politician. She wanted someone solid as for public perception on the count of corruption and reliability, and was confident enough of her own capabilities to lead on the political side.When Pranab Mukherjee sought a ‘change at the top’When the unexpected Mukherjee approach for “change at the top” came, the Congress had gone to the country in 2009 after five years in office under Manmohan Singh and had vastly improved its Lok Sabha results (from 145 to 206), with more than doubling its wins in the electorally crucial state of Uttar Pradesh. These were no small achievements, although in 2010, the Manmohan government had begun to encounter major challenges. The financial crisis of 2008 was now showing its effects, inflation was rising and the interest rate was shooting up. The so-called 2G scandal was simultaneously rocking the country, courtesy a dubious CAG report and a relentless media.In such circumstances, perhaps only a political buccaneer would agree to stab a leader such as Manmohan Singh in the back by entering into secret dealings for his overthrow especially when only one year prior in 2009 his government had produced electoral results.Although somewhat quick-tempered, Mukherjee was a cultured and gentle personality, not the hustling conspiratorial type. Without sound, fury, drama, Sonia Gandhi allowed the moment to pass. She merely changed the subject when her experienced colleague brought up a most uncomfortable thought with disconcerting suddenness. But she could not help being “shocked”.Mukherjee’s daughter has asked what was there for Sonia Gandhi to be shocked about. For an accomplished minister, was there anything wrong in nursing a political ambition? Sharmishta Mukherjee is on a sound footing on this. Still, it may be unworthy of her to ungraciously, illogically and out of context bring up “dynasty”. The question here was not one of political ambition but of playing devious games to knock out an incumbent prime minister by a senior colleague – the archetypical Brutus act. That, in fact, was the game the Congress’ opposition was arranging exactly at that time to unseat Manmohan Singh. Should Sonia Gandhi – or for that matter Pranab Mukherjee – have been a party to it? In 1996, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-L.K. Advani rivalry had also produced something unexpected and strange on the BJP side, as brought out by the late Rajinder Puri – the acerbic political commentator and sometime trenchant cartoonist – in a Delhi newspaper article. This was in respect of the 13-day Vajpayee government. In an unstable situation President Shankar Dayal Sharma had invited Atal Bihari Vajpayee to form the government and prove his majority on the floor of the House. As Vajpayee’s emissaries were dispatched to regional parties to solicit support, wrote Puri, Advani’s emissaries followed the same trail to dissuade those parties from lending their endorsement. Seeing no hope of proving his majority on the floor of the Lok Sabha, Vajpayee threw in the towel.It is noteworthy, however, that Vajpayee had not been the prime minister and Advani was not guilty of plotting to bring down the leader of the government of his own party in pursuit of personal ambition.